CRJay
-
Posts
286 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by CRJay
-
-
4 hours ago, S P said:
Professional pilots also do not plow straight through the localizer at more than 45 deg intercept angle then mash the APP button at the last moment and expect the autopilot to fly the approach for them.
You'd be surprised... And technically it is not an issue. You can arm approach from 89 degree angle. And if the mode captures, it should 99% of the time be flown properly. 4000+ hours on the CRJ, ask me how I know...
2 hours ago, S P said:Here is a YouTube from an actual professional CRJ pilot showing how to properly execute an ILS approach.
Note how "abandonware Aerosoft CRJ" seems to work just fine if you do it the right way.<...>
Surprisingly, real flying is a bit more involved than simple button mashing.
Ah yes, it works for someone else so the problem can not exist. The classic Aerosoft defense has rubbed off on you.
2 hours ago, Mathijs Kok said:Uhhhh... you do know Hans is working on an update right? He stated so on this very forum. And I know he is, I am seeing the work being done.
The only thing we know is;
Quote...that it will be a major one, that it will include the much awaited LNAV/VNAV fixes as well as Simbrief, Navigraph Charts, an updated model with a detailed cabin and more.
Which of the long list of issues in a previous post and in many unacknowledged bug reports fall under the "and more" part, we do not know. So whether any corrective action is planned or taken, we do not know. Would be cool if someone, say the developer, would acknowledge issues and let us know whether they are planning to fix them or not.
-
1
-
3
-
-
10 hours ago, S P said:
Several well-known YouTubers (who also happened to be professional pilots) have been posting recent flights on CRJ with a new Boris soundpack and were not seeing any "gamebreaking issues".
Professional pilot does not equal having any useful knowledge about the CRJ... I've seen similar cases of YouTube professional pilots flying the CRJ without knowing anything about the plane or its operating procedures, and therefore having no clue that stuff is not working like it should.
-
There is a middle ground between near zero communication and too much communication.
Right now it is at near zero. And I am not yet even talking about the status of the update. There are many, many threads on this forum reporting issues that never got so much as a single reply or acknowledgement from anyone involved with the CRJ. Now still, newly created threads reporting issues are just sitting there with zero input from ANYONE on the project.
Regarding the update status, I've said it before but I'll just repeat it. Please do better in communication. Take 5 minutes in the week/bi-weekly/monthly to write something along the lines of "Since the last update we've mainly worked on improving these systems, models, features, code optimization, whatever". Would make a world of difference with very little effort.
And answer some dang threads with issues on your own forum... "Working on it."/"Fixed in coming update."/"Not planned to change." It is so easy, if you'd only dedicate a fraction of your working hours in the week on it.
Communication is at rock bottom from HH and AS regarding the CRJ. I'd like to think it can only go up from here.
-
4
-
-
On 1/26/2024 at 5:58 PM, Hans Hartmann said:
I'm not sure what I could tell you except the things I wrote in my last post.
<..>
Because right now, I can't think of anything new that I could tell you.
I assume you are keeping track of stuff you fix and add in the update, since that would be quite useful for a changelog.
I think if you took literally 2 minutes a week, bi-weekly or even monthly to write something like;
"Over the past <insert time period here> we have worked on bugs in the AFCS, FMS and fueling panel, based on reports from our forums."
You'd have a lot more happy customers. Like, it indicates interaction, and that posting here with issues actually matters. Right now it seems you are focused on big ticket items like Simbrief, Navigraph integration, LNAV/VNAV fixes and some new model with a cabin (oh yeah, "and more"). No word on how many bugs from the infamous list will be fixed. There are still quite a few bugs documented in these very forums that never even got so much of a reply or confirmation that you know about them. Heck, you might even consider marking some of those as solved so people can see the progress if they make an effort to look.
You can clearly see people feeling like nothing is happening and not getting value for their money, or feeling let down for putting their trust in you as a developer to support your product. Instead of trying to satisfy them with the same statement and actually sort of ridiculing them, you could have thought of the above as well. Just be better.
OK, back to hibernation for me. See you if the update ever releases.
-
3
-
4
-
-
9 hours ago, Crabby said:
An update was promised "in the coming days". That means any time after that day. It does not mean soon.
It was the developer Hans, not so much just an Aerosoft representative, who locked the thread. He also did not say they would release it "whenever they want to release it". What Hans said was "The update will be released when we (PM, myself and the testing team) think that it's ready for release." That is very different from "whenever they want".
1. The update has to be finished.
2. I am sure there will be/is some kind of beta period.
3. Probably updates to the update due to discoveries during beta etc.
4. A release candidate will go out to the beta team.
5. If all goes well the RC will get released. If not, changes, beta, new RC etc. until a release is made.
Now, I know you know all that and that you know what Hans said and that you know what you posted above is not what was conveyed. It is fact childish posts filled with lies and misleading information like yours that caused the other thread to be closed. So, Hans did not close it, the rampant childishness (being nice here) did.
Regarding childishness... Something about pot calling kettle something something...
If you say there will be news in the coming days, you don't go dark for 3 weeks after. And "ready when it is ready" might be acceptable for a full release, not for an update for a broken product, long promised and way, way waaaaay overdue. But it appears you have some lower standards. RIP CRJ.
-
4
-
-
Yes, the mythical "after ATR it will be CRJs turn"... Since then, multiple ATR updates and zero, nada, zilch on the CRJ front. And no one in AS dares to even post anything anymore about the update it seems
. I think the time may soon come to declare time of death, RIP CRJ, and move on.
-
2
-
-
On 7/20/2023 at 5:18 PM, Jan_AS said:
Hi,
I can confirm that we are still working on the CRJ update. Work is currently underway on the model and systems. We will post more details in the coming days and keep you updated on the progress of the project.
Just to bring the thread back on topic. Any more details to share? I think we are up to week 54 or 55 without any CRJ update, every extra week is just that bit more embarrassing.
-
3
-
-
On 7/18/2023 at 8:07 AM, CVG99 said:
- I find it puzzling that the generator switches are in the Auto position for a cold and dark aircraft. I have not seen this in the real plane, as the only time these switches are Auto is when an engine or the APU is running. Additionally, the only time we leave the APU generator switch set to Auto is when we shut down the APU after takeoff. The switch stays selected to Auto for when the APU is restarted.
<...>
- The stabilizer trim is extremely oversensitive. It does not move anywhere near as fast when depressed in the real airplane. I also notice that when continuously holding down the trim, a trim aural warning is not triggered. Additionally, the stabilizer trim moves in .2 increments, not .1 increments. A setting of 7.7, for example, should not be possible.Can be operator specific. Any chance you or your operator flew the 100/200 before? It could be a leftover from that. Our CRJ900 FCOM Vol.2 states all GEN switches should be in Auto during the Originating Check, but that Normal Procedures section can be operator specific as well.
I'm not sure if I understand your trim comment correct. But the trim in the real plane is definitely capable of setting trim to 7.7 and moving in 0.1 increments. If you'd like I can PM you some pictures of odd numbered trim settings like 9.1, 6.7 etc. This may be some technical difference in your operators fleet though.
The PFD stuff was mentioned long, long ago, with visual comparison to the real thing. AS stated back then they had no intention to change anything there. I assume that stand has not changed, but who knows. In general, and in my admittedly pessimistic view, I would not hold your breath for an update despite how many times it is said they are working on it.
-
3
-
-
On 6/23/2023 at 9:22 PM, Mathijs Kok said:
As far as I know, how it is now is pretty much as it should be, but as said, it will be looked at.
It is not. In the real aircraft, the max overshoot you would see is maybe 0,2-0,3 N1 for 1 or 2 seconds before nailing the thrust target. It does not go to TO/GA N1 and then slowly roll back. I'd love to show you video reference but for obvious reasons I do not film during takeoff.
But for example, at ~2:55 in this video from Just Planes you will see it just nails the N1 target bug without any overshoot.
-
1
-
1
-
-
I think you are being very optimistic that this will be looked at for multiple reasons;
- Hydraulic SOVs are not touched in normal operations, which AS always states to only simulate. They are only used in emergencies and abnormal procedures.
-
Who knows if the CRJ update will release before MSFS2024 releases
.
But one can hope.
-
You are not the first and likely not the last one to encounter this issue without clear indications of anything being misconfigured. You could try to see if the pressure controller was stuck in manual mode by pressing the PRESS CONT button. Normally it would light up if in manual mode but who knows what kind of bugs are still hiding. In the second thread I also describe the abnormal procedure in some basic steps. What was your cabin altitude at?
-
I might be mistaken, as I have never flown into Aspen and it has been long, looooong ago since I flew any back course stuff. But this procedure would not need any use of the back course function on the CRJ. The back course button would be used to tell the autopilot to use reverse sensing basically. But since you are flying the localizer back course outbound, there is no reverse sensing involved. It should practically work as though you are following a normal localizer guiding you to LINDZ.
I suppose it should just work by being in green needle nav source, having the localizer frequency active with course 303 selected and then arming NAV mode. But I don't know how well this is implemented in the sim and/or addon.
-
1
-
-
I believe the 737 does not include any alternate calculations in the active flight plan unless you specifically set it up on some INIT REF -> ALTN DEST page.
The CRJ includes the alternate airport in the active route so you can set up the route to the alternate without using a secondary flight plan. It will also calculate roughly how much fuel it thinks it needs to get to the alternate, and uses the reserve value to show warnings like CHECK FUEL AT DESTINATION or CHECK FUEL AT ALTERNATE if your fuel is calculated to be less than the final reserve when you land at destination or alternate.
So if you use final reserve + alternate you are kind of doubling up on what the FMS does already if you have an alternate set for your route.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Should normally be final reserve. I believe we used something like 700kg back when we still flew some 700s. And 800kg for the 900.
-
Might not be simulated. Just entering RW23 would otherwise be enough, if both departure and destination airport have a RW23 it would show another menu to pick between those two.
-
On 1/31/2023 at 11:54 PM, mikkel said:
CRJay, I've asked you before, but it would be very nice if you could write a list of issues you think should be corrected on the CRJ.
I have no desire to spend any time writing up such a list, most of the issues have already been posted at one point or another and are supposedly on a list somewhere for the dev.
-
2
-
-
@GEK_the_Reaper What the heck are you arguing about anyway? You start with a non-sensical accusation that if he is at MTOW he must be over MZFW, which you have no way of knowing unless you know how he loaded the aircraft. The CRJ1000 fits nearly 9000kg of fuel, meaning you can be at or near MTOW while your ZFW is only ~32500kg. Then Himbi shows you his load on the tablet, all within limits and clearly below MZFW and you still keep arguing.
On a side note, just because I'm curious... Why take off with PACKS switched OFF? Or continuous ignition on while it is CAVOK, no icing conditions etc? And the FLEX takeoff was also nicely shown to be non-functional in your video.
-
1
-
-
I think you are missing the selected altitude being set down to single feet instead of hundreds. It is set to 8094 in this case. Should not happen. One to add to the list.
But please, just jump straight to blaming the user some more.
-
1
-
-
I think you are mistaking one thing for something else.
This rate of descent display is not part of the "coupled VNAV" option on that is default on CRJ1000s I believe, and a factory option on a small percentage of smaller CRJ models, which also includes the VNAV button on the MCP. The display of the required ROD is a default function of the VNAV MFD window and part of the ADVISORY VNAV that is on every CRJ from the CRJ100/200 to the CRJ1000.
If you switch on the VNAV MFD window, you should get that rate of descent display, period. And once again, this data/variable is available and displayed in the FMS in your addon. For any half decent developer it should be relatively trivial to display that same data in a different location as well. Should not require a major rewrite.
Go ask your supporting pilots to use the VNAV MFD window for fun and see if it shows rate of descent or not. It has very little requirements, just needs the proper cruising altitude set up and needs altitude restrictions along the route.
-
4
-
-
4 hours ago, Mathijs Kok said:
Mainly because it is rather rare in CRJ's. We could not find any pilot that assists us who ever used it.
I have stated multiple times since the original FSX CRJ X that my company has it as the default setup for the PF... There have been multiple other pilots on these forums also stating they use it every flight. It is a very useful tool and an integral part of the VNAV MFD window. It is such a shame it is still not implemented after many years, especially because the data is already available in the FMS and it should be a fairly trivial matter to also have it displayed in its proper place on the MFD.
-
3
-
-
10 hours ago, Mathijs Kok said:
Let me check, are you a pilot? Because if you would be you would know that issues with flight management are very common and most certainly do not lead to a fleet being grounded. We have dozens of images of crazy routings, MCDU's loading waypoints on the other end of the world etc.
Try flying that! And believe me, this is does happen and pilots do not worry a lot about it, they just fly the aircraft. In fact, they like doing so. The reason it happens is EXACTLY the same as in our code (or that of PMDG or whom ever), it is because it is damned complex code and there are always conditions that you do not anticipate. And time is not your friend as every month you are working with a new dataset and there will be new issues.
As said we knew about this issue, and it has been worked on. I have asked for Ha_Ma to supply me with some information and so far we have not received anything we can check.
Let me check, YES, and on the CRJ with a couple of thousand hours. And in case it wasn't obvious, I was continuing your poor real world comparison. If in the real world my FMS freezes when changing arrivals or approaches, and does so regularly, that is a bit more than a minor issue and will go in the tech log.
And to press the poor comparison a bit further, since it can happen on all the CRJs in your addon, it can happen on the entire CRJ fleet, making it a serious issue for the manufacturer. Luckily, as I mentioned, real world manufacturers take issues and bug reports a bit less lightly than Aerosoft and have a bit more manpower to actually support products they sell.
Saying "just fly the procedure manual like real pilots do" is fighting a symptom and not the root cause. And putting the responsibility of guiding you to a root cause on your users is poor support. Your addon sells like hot cakes according to you, at a profit I assume. So invest to get the manpower on the job to hunt down the bugs or just admit the addon is as good as abandoned until Mr. Hartmann maybe has some time or interest again.
-
10
-
-
On 12/14/2022 at 6:48 PM, Mathijs Kok said:
I disagree with that statement. I fly the CRJ a lot and I see hundreds of people use it online. They and I do not see it as nearly useless. Indeed changing the approach is an issue that needs to be looked at but to be honest, I almost never do that and when I do, I know it is an issue and simply fly the procedure myself. Just as a real pilot would do.
What is the reason you need to change the approach on nearly every flight? That's not very realistic, right?
And again, should you need to do that once in a while, why not simply take out the chart and fly the approach?
A real pilot would also note the issue in the technical log, and maintenance would most likely declare the FMS or the loaded software inop, which would affect airworthiness of the aircraft and with such a serious issue, most likely also of the fleet. After which the issue would be escalated to the manufacturer to find a fix. Only their developers would most likely not have the luxury to drag their feet on fixing the issue due to several authorities overseeing things.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Known issue with multiple people reporting steps to reproduce but no fix. Good luck.
-
Maybe now that SU10 has implemented access to terrain and weather API for WASM, we can get an update implementing WX radar... ?
Aerosoft - The home of abandonware
in General Discussion
Posted
See, you are one of those for who it is never OK. If I would have said 100% of the time you would have found some anecdote to refute that.
The 1% of cases I allude to are captures of false localizers, where essentially the plane still does exactly what it is supposed to do, but with a false signal.
No one is expecting perfection, but flying an ILS approach is definitely one of the basics it should get right. And who are you to determine it is user error? Why could it not be an actual bug as well? I have seen the same issue in the sim more than once, and I am pretty sure I know how to operate the plane properly. In the many linked posts above it is also clearly demonstrated no one seems to focus on fixing the actual bugs either. Anyway, enjoy making excuses for AS & HH.